RedAppleGP wrote:I'm not saying that they are equally likely. And how educated of a guess can you make? There are countless factors that play into it. From single person taking a misstep to the President signing a seemingly inconsequential bill, you'd have to know every single factor, because even if you leave just one out, your educated guess may just be rendered worthless.

You're not saying that it's equally likely that it'd be good or bad if the Holocaust never happened?

Well, I'm actually reading Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature and I'm starting to get to the part where he talks about how murders by people have caused more deaths than the government genocides.

And?

And again, preventing the Holocaust sounds like a great idea, but history has been fairly steady ever since the war. You can either advance humanity 10 fold, or allow for its extinction.

Do you believe that the Holocaust or the war was necessary for the advancement of the world?

This is telling me that you think without a doubt the lack of a Holocaust would be positive. Don't get me wrong; the Holocaust was terrible. But in your example, of course, finding your dog would make you happier. (Assuming) You love your dog, it's almost guaranteed that you'd be happier. The same can't be said about the Holocaust, which is on a much larger scale and has almost impossibly predictable outcomes.

As I stated, I don't think so without a doubt. I don't think either of those things are without a doubt going to result in a positive or negative outcome.

You said that it's hard to rival the terriblenessessess of what Hitler done do, so here's a list of 5 people cause I don't feel like making a longer one.
-Stalin
-Mao
-Pol Pot
ok I cant think of anymore

Exactly. Three people out of the 107 billion people that have ever existed. And all three are debatable.

I was just using 9/11 as an example. When was the last time we saw a purposeful genocide that bad?

The reason why there hasn't been a purposeful genocide that bad is because it's hard to kill that many millions of people, not because the world has learned to stop genocides. There have been multiple genocides since then that the world hasn't stopped, or even put in nearly enough of an effort to stop.

Also, we're making sure to keep fuckers from becoming dictators more ever since then AFAIK.

I think whether communist dictators were as bad as Hitler is debatable. While the communist dictators led to more deaths through the starvation they caused, they weren't trying to cause genocides, except for the Ukrainian genocide under Stalin.
The reason why this doesn't matter in terms of the debate is because there haven't been many communist dictators relative to all the people in the world, so it's unlikely that killing Hitler would result in one getting into power in Germany.

Since we are talking about time travel and killing hitler in the fun section, I thought I'd propose and alternate scenario. (Using the whole multi-verse possibility)

Let's say you go back in time, and kill baby hitler. You return to the future, but strangely, hitler has still risen to power exactly as he had before you killed him. Going back to the time machine, you program it to intercept him before he begins his "final solution."

As you materialize in front of him, he shows no surprise. "You're from the future as well, I see."

"I killed you!" you reply! "No," he says, "You killed the baby whose identity I used once I began my ascension to power. You see, in a more distant future even from yours, a man rose to power who killed off almost all of humanity. The few of us who survived in the underground bunkers only knew that the person was descended from a German Jew, but we couldn't trace his lineage. In desperation, I was sent back to kill as many Jews as possible in Germany to avoid the apocalypse. You see, I'm just trying to reduce the harm. I kill millions to save billions."

Since we are talking about time travel and killing hitler in the fun section, I thought I'd propose and alternate scenario. (Using the whole multi-verse possibility)

Let's say you go back in time, and kill baby hitler. You return to the future, but strangely, hitler has still risen to power exactly as he had before you killed him. Going back to the time machine, you program it to intercept him before he begins his "final solution."

As you materialize in front of him, he shows no surprise. "You're from the future as well, I see."

"I killed you!" you reply! "No," he says, "You killed the baby whose identity I used once I began my ascension to power. You see, in a more distant future even from yours, a man rose to power who killed off almost all of humanity. The few of us who survived in the underground bunkers only knew that the person was descended from a German Jew, but we couldn't trace his lineage. In desperation, I was sent back to kill as many Jews as possible in Germany to avoid the apocalypse. You see, I'm just trying to reduce the harm. I kill millions to save billions."

Gun at the ready, what do you do?

Assuming I still have the time machine, I would kill him so that the evil man does rise to power. Then, I would find out who that evil man is and kill him when he was a baby.

Since we are talking about time travel and killing hitler in the fun section, I thought I'd propose and alternate scenario.

Fun scenario here.

I would allow this Hitler to live, because there is no guarantee I could properly identify and kill the “mystery” German-Jew. In this scenario, the only person who can be confirmed not be the true culprit is the German baby who was initially killed.

Historians estimate that around six millions Jews were murdered during WW2. Granted, not all of these people resided in Germany, but how would one go about searching for the correct German-Jew to kill amongst a sea of thousands of German Jews?

Deciding to kill Hitler is based on 2 assumptions;

1; You are able to track down and properly identify the culprit who will bring forth the apocolypse (which I’ve highlighted isn’t likely).

And

2; That no other charismatic orator would just replace Hitler and commit a similar (or worse) atrocity. I’ve explained before that 1920’s Germany was poverty-stricken and humiliated. The the perfect environment for some “savior” to come along, promising to restore Germany to its former glory. Some of Hitler's henchmen, Joseph Goebbels, or Heinrich Himmler prove to be good candidates (they were possibly more evil than Hitler).

There’s little evidence that killing Hitler in this scenario (or any scenario) will lead to a greater outcome.

I would allow this Hitler to live, because there is no guarantee I could properly identify and kill the “mystery” German-Jew.

??? German Jew???

Are you referring to Hitler who was an Austrian catholic (with possibly a jewish grandmother). If so, why would it be so hard to find him. We know his name, we know his address, and we know the name and occupation of his parents. You would have to be a pretty incompetent time traveler not to find this particular baby if that were your goal.

There is a good chance, as others mention, that someone else would have replaced Hitler. However, there is a 100% chance that not killing Hitler would lead to the death and suffering of millions. Seems like an easy choice to me.

How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.

Are you referring to Hitler who was an Austrian catholic (with possibly a jewish grandmother).

I am aware that Hitler was not Jewish. Read PsYcHo’s hypothetical (reread it carefully it you’ve already glanced at it).

PsYcHo wrote:
Let's say you go back in time, and kill baby hitler. You return to the future, but strangely, hitler has still risen to power exactly as he had before you killed him. Going back to the time machine, you program it to intercept him before he begins his "final solution."

As you materialize in front of him, he shows no surprise. "You're from the future as well, I see."

"I killed you!" you reply! "No," he says, "You killed the baby whose identity I used once I began my ascension to power. You see, in a more distant future even from yours, a man rose to power who killed off almost all of humanity. The few of us who survived in the underground bunkers only knew that the person was descended from a German Jew, but we couldn't trace his lineage. In desperation, I was sent back to kill as many Jews as possible in Germany to avoid the apocalypse. You see, I'm just trying to reduce the harm. I kill millions to save billions."

There is a good chance, as others mention, that someone else would have replaced Hitler. However, there is a 100% chance that not killing Hitler would lead to the death and suffering of millions. Seems like an easy choice to me.

How is this an easy choice? You have no way to know whether or not your actions have produced a “greater good.” Sure, 6 million *may* not die, but what if, alternatively, 8 million die? In either scenario, Hitler’s death would bring unintended consequences. Should it lead to a worse outcome and an increase in suffering, how would you justify this? Perhaps the most rational decision would be to take no action at all.